Black Flag: Anarchist Review Autumn 2024 issue now out

The new issue of Black Flag: Anarchist Review is now available:

https://www.blackflag.org.uk

The main focus is anarchism and war, using the example of Kropotkin’s support for the Allies in 1914 as its starting point. We indicate that in 1914 the anarchist movement rose to the challenge and remained overwhelming faithful to its Internationalist principles and show the flaws with Kropotkin’s position and why it failed to gather support in the movement.

The notion – suggested by Lenin and Trotsky – that Kropotkin represented anarchism in his support of the war and that anarchists, in general, supported him is false. In reality, “nothing of the kind happened; only about a hundred anarchists signed the various pronouncements in support of the war; the majority in all countries maintained the anti-militarist position as consistently as the Bolsheviks.” (George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study of Peter Kropotkin [London: Boardman, 1950], 380)

We reprint articles from Freedom and Mother Earth although we do include new translations of two replies to The Manifesto of the Sixteen issued in French. We also reprint Kropotkin’s pamphlets entitled La Guerre separated by 30 years – 1882 and 1912 – to show how at odds his position in 1914 was to these well-known statements, although as we show it was not completely alien to his pre-1914 opinions.

Next is Anselmo Lorenzo (1841-1914), a founding member of the Spanish anarchist movement and active in it to his death. Very little of his writings are available in English and we reproduce three pieces by him. We then move onto Edward Carpenter (1844-1929), a British libertarian socialist who was a pioneer on many issues – not least gay liberation. We then mark the birth of Ricardo Flores Magón (1874-1922), the Mexican anarchist who played a key role in his country’s revolution.

We end with Wayne Price’s contribution to the debate started in the last issue on voting, a critique and a response on previous articles in Black Flag on the Ukraine war, Tomás Ibáñez’s account of the birth of the circled-A 60 years ago and a discussion of Ursula Le Guin’s classic SF book The Dispossessed to mark its 50th anniversary.

Original translations which appear in Black Flag: Anarchist Review eventually appear on-line here:

https://anarchistfaq.org/translations/index.html

Next year we aim to continue to cover a range of people and subjects. These should hopefully include the 1905 Russian Revolution and articles on and by the likes of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louisa Sarah Bevington, Alexander Berkman, Elisée Reclus and Luigi Fabbri, amongst others. Plus the usual reviews and news of the movement.

However, this work needs help otherwise at some stage it will end. Contributions from libertarian socialists are welcome on these and other subjects! We are a small collective and always need help in writing, translating and gathering material, so please get in touch if you want to see Black Flag Anarchist Review continue.

This issue’s editorial and contents are:

Editorial

Welcome to the third issue of Black Flag in 2024!

We start with Kropotkin’s decision to support the Allies in World War I, a decision which shocked his comrades given his previous arguments (as shown by the two of Kropotkin’s pamphlets on war, separated by 30 years, which we reprint). We reprint a few articles by Kropotkin (including The Manifesto of the Sixteen) as well as anti-war articles representing the views of the majority of anarchists (we, of course, do not agree with Kropotkin and include them to place the replies to them in context). As these articles show, the pro-war advocates were very much expounding a non-anarchist position and were very much in the minority.

We follow this with works by Anselmo Lorenzo, a key figure in the early decades of Spanish anarchism. A “Bakuninist” in the First International, very little of his writings are available in English and we present three pieces here. Next is Edward Carpenter, an English libertarian socialist who was close to anarchism and who worked with anarchists. Openly gay, he advocated many causes which later – often much later – became mainstream (such as gay rights, sexual liberation, vegetarianism and animal rights). A true pioneer.

We then move onto Ricardo Flores Magón, the Mexican anarchist who played an important role in the Mexican revolution. One historian proclaims the Manifesto to the Workers of the World as “a Marxian program that adhered closely to the IWW’s own preamble.” (William M. Adler, The Man Who Never Died: The Life, Times, and Legacy of Joe Hill, American Labor Icon [New York: Bloomsbury, 2011], 169) While its call for expropriation undoubtedly matched the I.W.W.’s revolutionary unionist position, that its anarchist politics could be mistaken for Marxist shows a woeful ignorance of Flores Magón’s anarchist-communism – and the negative attitude of the Marxists of the period to such struggles. Hopefully the articles we reprint here will show his anarchist politics clearly.

Wayne Price continues the debate started in the last issue on whether anarchists should vote. This feels like a perennial subject in anarchist ranks but one which needs to be discussed, particularly in the light of changing circumstances. We also include articles on the Ukraine War, a critique of earlier articles in Black Flag and a reply by their author.

We end by marking two anniversaries before our usual round up of news of the movement (“Parish Notes”). These are the 60th anniversary of the circled-A and the 50th of Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed. Anarchists, it is fair to say, take our symbols for granted but we should not – we should know why our flag is black, for example (see the appendix in Volume 1 of An Anarchist FAQ). So we are happy to reprint an account of the origins of the circled-A. As for The Dispossessed, it remains the best fictional account of an anarchist society albeit a flawed one – yet the struggle against these flaws in the novel also reflect anarchist theory, a point often overlooked in summaries of it.

If you want to contribute rather than moan at those who do, whether its writing new material or letting us know of on-line articles, reviews or translations, then contact us:

blackflagmag@yahoo.co.uk

Contents

Iain McKay, 1914: World War or Class War

  • Peter Kropotkin, War (1882)
  • Peter Kropotkin, Wars and Capitalism (1914)
  • Nineteen-Fourteen
    • “Blood and Iron”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, September 1914
    • “The Reckoning”, Mother Earth, September 1914
    • Peter Kropotkin, “A Letter on the Present War”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, October 1914
    • H. Keell, “Have the Leopards Changed their Spots?”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, October 1914
    • “If we must fight, let it be for the Social Revolution”, Mother Earth, October 1914
    • Errico Malatesta, “Anarchists Have Forgotten Their Principles”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, November 1914
    • Robert Selkirk, “Kropotkin’s Letter on the War”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, November 1914
    • Alexander Berkman, “In Reply to Kropotkin”, Mother Earth, November, 1914
    • Peter Kropotkin, “Anti-militarism: Was it Properly Understood?”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, November 1914
    • Errico Malatesta, “Anti-Militarism: Was it Properly Understood?”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, December 1914
    • Fred W. Dunn, “Kropotkin’s Letter to Professor Steffen”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, December 1914
    • Peter Kropotkin, “Letter on Current Events”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, December 1914
  • Nineteen-Fifteen
    • T. Crick, “Is this the Last War?”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, January 1915
    • “Observations and Comments”, Mother Earth, January 1915
    • Witt Lawman, “Stand We Firm?”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, February 1915
    • International Anarchist Manifesto on the War (March 1915)
    • Errico Malatesta, “While the Carnage Lasts”, Volontà, 3 April 1915
    • Alexander Schapiro, “Looking Forward”, Mother Earth, April 1915
    • Errico Malatesta, “Italy Also!”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, June 1915
    • Rudolf Rocker, “A Study in Fact”, Mother Earth, August 1915
    • Recchioni, “Between Ourselves Where We Have Failed and How We Might Succeed”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, September 1915
    • “Voices From Prison”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, December 1915
  • Nineteen-Sixteen
    • Peter Kropotkin, “The Manifesto of the Sixteen”, La Bataille, 14 March 1916
    • Errico Malatesta, “Pro-Government Anarchists”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, April 1916
    • International Anarchist Group of London, Anarchist Declaration (April 1916)
    • Anarchist-Communist Study Group, About the Manifesto of the Sixteen: A Statement and Protest (May 1916)
    • “The Sixteen – And the Rest”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, June 1916
    • Alexandre Ghé, Open Letter to P. Kropotkin (1916)
  • Nineteen-Seventeen
    • Ricardo Flores Magón, “The War”, Regeneración (English Section) 21 April 1917
    • “An Open Letter of Peter Kropotkin to the Western Workingmen”, The Railway Review, 29 June 1917
    • “Kropotkin’s Farewell”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, July 1917

Death of Anselmo Lorenzo, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, January 1915

  • The Conference in London, El Proletariado Militante : Memorias de un internacional (1901)
  • The Labour Movement in Spain, Free Society: A Periodical of Anarchist Thought, Work, and Literature, 5 July 1903
  • The Citizen and the Producer: The Objects of the Social Revolution, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, September 1913
  1. W., Edward Carpenter, Freedom, 27 February 1981
  • “Important Letter from Edward Carpenter, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism”, December 1892
  • “William Morris”, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, December 1896
  • “Long Live Syndicalism!”, The Syndicalist, May 1912
  • V Non-Governmental Society, Towards Industrial Freedom (1917)

Brian Morris, Flores Magón and the Mexican Liberal Party

  • “To Woman”, Regeneración, 24 September 1910
  • “Cannon Fodder”, Regeneración, 15 October 1910
  • “To the American People”, Regeneración (English Section), 25 February 1911
  • “Class Struggle”, Regeneración, 4 March 1911
  • “The Right of Property”, Regeneración, 18 March 1911
  • “The Appeal of Mexico to American Labor”, Mother Earth, April 1911
  • “Manifesto to the Workers of the World”, Regeneración (English Section), 8 April 1911
  • Manifesto of 23 September 1911
  • “The Political Socialists”, “Los socialistas politicos”, Regeneración, 2 March 1912
  • “Without Bosses”, Regeneración, 21 March 1914
  • “The Death of the Bourgeois System”, Regeneración, 2 October 1915

Debate: Wayne Price, “Should Anarchists Vote?” is the Wrong Question

Debate: on the Ukraine War

Bill Beech, War On Anarchism

Wayne Price, Should Anarchists Defend Ukraine? A Response to Bill Beech

Tomás Ibáñez, The circled A at 60

Iain McKay, The Dispossessed at 50

Parish Notices

“Anarchists and Office-Seeking”, Free Society: A Periodical of Anarchist, Thought, Work and Literature, 16 August 1903

“Manifesto of the Anarchist Federation on War”, War Commentary: For Anarchism, Mid-December 1943

Comments

anon (not verified) Tue, 11/12/2024 - 14:14

Does anyone take Wayne's contribution to the new edition of Black Flag seriously? It just reads like lazy anarchist propaganda.

anon (not verified) Tue, 11/12/2024 - 19:45

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Wayne's discourses on 'anarchism' have entered the realm of dated intellectual dogma. That's all I have to say because he hasn't evolved his critique of modern times, of overpopulation, extinction theory, and techno- authority's dominant influence on the --democratic corporate zietgeist--

GEF (not verified) Tue, 11/12/2024 - 20:42

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Overpopulation and extinction theory are mediocre, pointless narratives. Techno-authoritarianism is real, tho, and explains a lot about the recent US elections.

Dude.. I just got downvoted by nationalcucks on Reddit.

anon (not verified) Tue, 11/12/2024 - 21:28

In reply to by GEF (not verified)

Another anon here, "Overpopulation and extinction theory are mediocre, pointless narratives"
Oh really, there is a global climate generated famine is just on our doorsteps, it's not mediocre when elections are won or lost on a 5% inflation rate, as petty as that may seem. Hunger is a powerful social catalyst for tumultuous social unrest.

Wayne Price (not verified) Wed, 11/13/2024 - 10:12

In reply to by GEF (not verified)

I agree that "overpopulation," while perhaps a contributing factor, is not a major cause of the advancing ecological catastrophe. The primary problem is the drive of industrial capitalism to accumulate, grow (quantitatively), and develop past all ecological and natural boundaries. As Bookchin said (building on Marxism). The possibility of a non-growth, balanced, world ecology requires ending capital and the state, and replacing them with a self-managed, cooperative, non-profit, and free society. That is the program of revolutionary anarchist-socialism.

anon (not verified) Wed, 11/13/2024 - 19:25

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Bookchin said that? Wow, didn't realise he was that wise. Be nice to have a Bookchin-Stirner-esque fusion, I reckon it could work, hmmm, thanks Wayne, something to ponder over.

anon (not verified) Wed, 11/13/2024 - 01:46

" Edward Carpenter, an English libertarian socialist ,,,,,,,,,,Openly gay, he advocated many causes which later – often much later – became mainstream (such as gay rights, sexual liberation, vegetarianism and animal rights). A true pioneer."
"Often much later" wtf! Why didn't he just say it when he was young, why later? BECAUSE HE WAITED until the subjects had entered the accepted bourgeois IdPol normative political arene, THAT'S WHY! Another leftist Statist!
This is what Wayne is all about!

Wayne Price (not verified) Wed, 11/13/2024 - 10:29

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Once again, I am dragged into a discussion for unknown reasons--by an ignorant fool.

Edward Carpenter did advocate for Gay rights, women's rights, animal rights, and libertarian socialism--as openly as he could under the repressive conditions of Victorian England. He did not wait for " the accepted bourgeois IdPol normative political arena", a completely anachronistic statement! He was hardly a "leftist Statist." Far from perfect (unlike the above writer?) he *was* a "true pioneer" of LGBTQ liberation and anti-state socialism. (Read the articles in Anarchist Review.)

I would be proud to say, as the author does, that "This is what Wayne is all about!"

anon (not verified) Wed, 11/13/2024 - 11:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"often much later" refers to wen those causes "became mainstream," not when Carpenter advocated them.

In other words, he advocated them and then "much later" they became mainstream.

In the subject line I pick on your terrible reading comprehension, but I also could have pointed out that you don't even know the basics of Carpenter's biography or, seemingly, how concepts like "later" work.

The Corrector (not verified) Wed, 11/13/2024 - 10:46

In this publication, Wayne Price claims (falsely) that, "In Ukraine, anarchists do not support Zelensky’s party, nor run in elections, nor give any political support to his government. They oppose the government’s austerity policies and its anti-union laws. They do not endorse the conscription laws and the bureaucratic army."

In reality, anarchists like Dmitry Petrov (AKA Ilya Leshiy) were active members of the state army in the Ukraine, they not only support the state, they act as its soldiers, its armed enforcers, they are part of the state, and in Petrov's case, he was also a supporter of conscription, a form of state repression and coercion, as indicated by the interview with him by German media outlet Taz. The fact that he was an agent of the state and vocal supporter of state coercion, dialogue with the state and deep participation in the state has not stopped other anarchists, such as CrimethInc, from lionizing him as an exemplary anarchist figure, showing that their particular brand of anarchism is meaningless. The fact that Price has to back up his position with outright disinformation speaks volumes.

https://taz.de/Russischer-Anarchist-verteidigt-Ukraine/!5918395/

anarcho (not verified) Wed, 11/13/2024 - 23:41

In reply to by The Corrector (not verified)

I must admit to being sick of this nonsense -- in terms of Wayne's "disinformation", if someone does "support the state" are they an anarchist?

So, we can read that quote as "In Ukraine, ALL GENUINE anarchists do not support Zelensky’s party, nor run in elections, nor give any political support to his government. They oppose the government’s austerity policies and its anti-union laws. They do not endorse the conscription laws and the bureaucratic army."

And you assume that Wayne was aware of these "anarchists" and so is practicing" "disinfo" rather than not being aware of what every "anarchist" in Ukraine is doing.

Automatically assuming bad-faith is wrong and counter-productive -- perhaps engage with Wayne's argument and provide an alternative?

Wayne Price (not verified) Thu, 11/14/2024 - 10:35

In reply to by anarcho (not verified)

I am aware that various Ukrainian anarchists have joined the army. Obviously a popular militia led by anarchists (as in Spain, Makhno's Ukraine, Korea, Sandino, etc.) would be optimal. But since the Ukrainian anarchists were too small and marginal to organize this, a number chose to join the only force fighting against the invasion and destruction of their people. I do not regard this as giving political support to the capitalist state, especially if they continue to state their revolutionary opposition to the state, do not endorse political candidates, do not support the Zelensky regime and its policies, etc. Nothing I have written denies ay of this. There was no "disinformation."

The Corrector (not verified) Thu, 11/14/2024 - 10:50

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Your wrongly claimed that "They do not endorse the conscription laws and the bureaucratic army," when in reality, this is exactly what Dmitry Petrov, one of the most prominent anarchists in the Ukrainian war effort (despite being Russian himself) and co-founder of the Resistance Committee did endorse! If you state the opposite of the truth as fact, that's called disinformation, hope this helps!

Also, it does not matter if you personally "do not regard this [joining and serving a state army] as giving political support to the capitalist state," because in reality, that's exactly what it does! Why would capitalist states build and maintain armies if those armies didn't support them and their interests? You can live in a fantasy land if you so choose, this will not change the nature of armies.

Beyond this, anarchists like Petrov didn't just quietly enlist, they gave vocal support to the army and even conscription, and presented this as being part of anarchist practice and theory. This is worse than simply seeing enlistment as a lesser evil or necessary evil and enlisting. Anarchists do all kinds of things that aren't anarchist (breathing air for instance), and presenting them as "anarchist" is fallacious, even harmful in the case of militarism and imperialism.

https://taz.de/Russischer-Anarchist-verteidigt-Ukraine/!5918395/

Wayne Price (not verified) Fri, 11/15/2024 - 15:03

In reply to by The Corrector (not verified)

The Corrector says my views distort those of Dimitry Petrov. If DP wrote in favor of conscription, then I disagree with him. Nor do I agree with "[giving] vocal support to the army and even conscription." What revolutionary internationalists do is to "give vocal support" to the *war* against the imperialist aggressor.

Yes, capitalist states maintain armies to support their oppressive interests. This is not a new point. But if the only way you can join the popular fight against the imperialist invader is to join the army, then I understand why some anarchists would do so. As you write, you can understand "enlistment as a lesser evil or necessary evil and enlisting." But why enlist? Because Ukrainian anarchists see self-determination of their people as a valid political goal, consistent with anarchism (not "non-anarchist" at all). And I hope they use the opportunity to spread anarchist propaganda among the troops.

The Corrector (not verified) Fri, 11/15/2024 - 16:16

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

What revolutionary internationalist anarchists do is wish for the defeat of their own imperialist states, such as Malatesta did with the UK in the Second Boer War, in an article in a book you yourself reviewed and should be aware of.

In the same book he also called for anti-militarist propaganda within the army, not pro-militarist propaganda within the army, as you seem to call for.

One cannot support the current national liberation war of Palestine, for instance, and at the same time say that it's just fine and dandy for Israeli and American arms companies to also supply Ukraine and profit from doing so. There are no exceptions to be made for boycott and divestment, and Russian imperialism does not make American and Israeli imperialism a necessary evil (for anarchists at least). Self-determination and national liberation must apply to all nations, not to just Ukraine at the expense of other nations. That is precisely the difference between national liberation (freedom) and nationalism (supremacy).

Anarchists are precisely those who don't see enlisting in state armies as the only possible way to resist, and if one does see it that way, one should openly declare they are breaking with anarchism, not reaffirming it. Anarchists historically supported both national liberation and anti-militarism. They did not all jettison anti-militarism in order to support nationalism (rather than national liberation).

With the Greco-Turkish War of 1897, both Malatesta and Kropotkin agreed that the imperialist intervention was the dominant factor. Although they supported national liberation, they did not let this override anti-imperialism and anti-militarism as you propose. Which is why Malatesta was a consistent anarchist and you are far from it. You should either educate yourself about the anarchism you seek to educate others about, or admit that you are against anarchism.

anon (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 10:59

In reply to by The Corrector (not verified)

What makes national liberation consistent with anarchism? The modern 20th century view of nations is inherently anti-anarchistic as it places the ethnic collectivities before indiivduals, and impersons in the place of persons.

Given how all the successful natlib movements have paved the way to authoritarian state-building (perhaps with the exception of Bougainville), and how many are based on made-up reframing of populations within previously non-existent identities often defined by the very imperialism they grew up against (Ukraine, for example... but also Palestine, Algeria, etc), Malatesta's stance should be looked back with a critical historical distance. Also, well, it's pretty obvious the Boer weren't a movement to support by any anarchist standard, as they were a White supremacist settler movement, even more racist than the British... So I get that, as with the case of Algeria and the more interesting marxist national liberation movement of Angola, "nation" was being held as a vehicle for "liberating" and securing territories and economies out of the grasp of Euro and US imperialism, but they did become their own fucked up states in the process.

anon (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 14:27

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yeah read Benedict Anderson!

“Just as hostile to imperialism, it [anarchism] had no theoretical prejudices against ‘small’ and ‘ahistorical’ nationalisms, including those in the colonial world."

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/benedict-anderson-the-age-of-gl…

Also learn elsewhere that anarchists have long supported national liberation (the Haymarket anarchists, Louise Michel and Errico Malatesta for example)!

Stop supporting working class struggles because they've only lead to states so far! In fact every kind of struggle, against sexism or racism or whatever is inconsistent with anarchism because states still exist! (Nudge nudge wink wink)

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 16:48

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You regard Ukraine and Palestine as "made-up reframing of populations within previously non-existent identities often defined by the very imperialism they grew up against." In brief, the Ukrainians and Palestinians (among others) are deluded peoples who should not be supported against the Russian imperialists or the Israeli colonizers and their U.S. imperialist backers. "Made-up" and "non-existent" peoples! Let the Russians crush them or the Israeli decimate them!

However, what counts is not whether you or I, or the Russians or the Israelis, or Western anarchists, regard Ukrainians or Palestinians as real nations, but whether the people themselves have this opinion (e.g., in 1991 the Ukrainians overwhelmingly voted to separate out as an independent nation, including the Russian-speakers). Of course, so long as they continue to support states and capitalism, they will not solve their problems. That's why we do not merely cheerlead their struggles, but raise our program within them.

anon (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 17:46

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

You still didn't answer the Referendum Conundrum (i.e. that there were referendums in Donetsk and Crimea that in vast majority declared independence from Kiev. So... they too got an inalienable right to break free from Ukraine and even rejoin Russia, as it is "the people's will" as much as the 1991 referendum. If this referendum was faked then why not the one in 1991?

Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 07:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"If this referendum was faked then why not the one in 1991?"

They weren't faked, both the Crimean and the Donbass referendum results were generally confirmed by independent opinion polls. They were hastily and chaotically put together, especially the Donbass referendums where they were amateuristically printed and distributed by volunteers at the last moment, so I'm sure there were quite some issues one could take with them on a technical level. But they did, by and large, reflect the opinion of the population - in Crimea with about 80% wanting to join Russia and in the DNR/LNR with about 80% wanting some form of autonomy from Kiev.

I also find it a bit funny when people hammer on that Ukrainian independence referendum of 1991 when just a few months earlier another referendum was held about remaining in the (renewed) soviet union which more than 70% of people in Ukraine also voted in favour of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum). So in the span of a few months we had two opposite referendums which both had a large majority in favour...go figure!

GEF (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 08:40

In reply to by Tim Declercq (not verified)

Well I wasn't claiming they were faked. It was just to mirror the usual pretense coming from NATO shills, that anything coming from the Russian side is illegitimate yet any political process that's "pro-West" is indisputable, even despite a literal violent putsch in Kiev, 2014. Like most NATO member states didn't give a damn when Catalonia voted for independence from Spain and the Spanish state came down hard on the pro-independence politicians... that, too was "the will of the People", but since Spain is a big asset of the EU and NATO...

That's the whole problem with talking about the People's will... How to gauge it? What if quantitative funnels like referendums weren't enough to express what people really want?

And majority rule? Fuck that, too. That's collectivist dictatorship, basically... which is not impervious to any gang managing to consolidate enough influence through the right channels will just steer "public opinion" to their agenda. Anyone who's been into democratic politics (student, union, government or otherwise) knows how the gimmick works. I'd recommend any anarchist to go through mainstream politics for a while, just for the formative experience so to see the true face of "democracy".

The Corrector (not verified) Thu, 11/14/2024 - 10:38

In reply to by anarcho (not verified)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm observing Price's willful omissions and disinformations, for example when he reviewed Volume 5 of Malatesta's complete works (AK Press) and intentionally left out any mention of Malatesta's multiple articles on anti-militarism in that volume.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-malatesta-s-revolut…

The most recent article in Black Flag isn't the first time Price has written on Ukraine, or made clear that he doesn't see willful participation in and propaganda for a state army (not to mention a NATO effort) as being in any contradiction with anarchist principles or practice.

If Price is truly unaware that several anarchists and groups of anarchists in Ukraine are willful soldiers in the state army, and also do propaganda for the state war effort, why is he writing articles on a subject that he's ignorant about? It's not hard to find the information in English. Look up CrimethInc and the anarchist Resistance Committee (which also includes members of fascist organizations before and during the war). Use a search engine before writing an article maybe. And don't complain that someone knows more about the subject than you and corrects your disinformation. Educator, educate thyself.

Wayne Price (not verified) Fri, 11/15/2024 - 16:09

In reply to by The Corrector (not verified)

The Corrector is confused. They write that they do not assume that I am writing in "bad faith." But Corrector claims that I engage in "willful omissions and disinformations"--which is to say I deliberately lie, that is, act in bad faith. Corrector is not just saying that my opinions are wrong (which is always possible) but that my facts are wrong, and deliberately so.

How I supposedly lie is that I " intentionally left out any mention of Malatesta's multiple articles on anti-militarism" in my review of vol. 5 of his collected works.

From this charge, you would think that I portray the great Italian anarchist Malatesta as a blood-thirsty lover of war, whereas supposedly he was a peace-loving pacifist. Of course, the revolutionary anarchist-socialist was neither a war-lover nor a pacifist.

If anyone bothers to read my book review (a link to it is thoughtfully provided by Corrector), they would see that I portray Malatesta as
(1) vehemently opposed to war between imperialist states (such as Turkey vs. Italy, or World War I--which broke out after this volume's writings, and so is not covered in my review).
(2) opposed to wars waged by imperialist powers against oppressed people (Italy vs. Libyan Arabs, Spain vs. Cuba).
(3) supported wars of national liberation against oppressor, imperial, states (Libyan Arabs vs. Italy, Cubans vs. Spain) While he wanted the struggle to go all the way to anarchist revolution, his support did not depend on the nature of the government and economy but only on the existence of national oppression (today: Ukraine vs. Russia; Palestine vs. Israel; Taiwan vs. China; Puerto Rico vs. USA).

I think I made it pretty clear what Malatesta's attitude was to militarism. And I agree with him.

The Corrector (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 09:32

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Not to go tit for tat Price, but it appears that you are the confused in this situation. I never claimed Malatesta was a pacifist, anti-militarism is not pacifism, Malatesta was an anti-militarist who supported militant actions and wars of national liberation (not inter-imperialist wars such as the Greco-Turkish war of 1897 or the current Russia-Ukraine/NATO war.) I also never claimed that you portrayed him as "a blood-thirsty lover of war."

Anarchist anti-militarism is not mere opposition to war or to imperialist wars, it is, as Malatesta pointed out in Volume 5 of his writings and as you ignored in your review, a position in which "For us, it is truly the very existence of the army that we want to destroy, however it is organized. It is loathing for the role of soldier — the role of slave and cop combined — that we must inspire in the spirit of the people and especially of the youth.”

In another article in the same volume, which you also ignored, Malatesta clarifies, "We are not enemies of this or that form of military organization; we are sworn enemies of any armed force whatsoever in the service of any authority. We are enemies of the army, enemies of the police, enemies of the system known as the armed nation.”

This of course doesn't mean Malatesta was opposed to armed organization as such (or opposed to national liberation), only to that of the State (and nationalism as a supremacist religion of the nation-state). You do not even understand the distinction between militarism and war, or between militarism and militancy. As we can see, you are extremely confused about basic anarchist positions and thinking (possibly due to your background as an authoritarian and statist communist, but who's to say?)

You clearly disagree with Malatesta on militarism, which is why you make no mention of his multiple articles about it in that volume. In addition to the two I've already mentioned, Malatesta also has another in that volume where he encourages refusal of service and insubordination within armed forces, mentioning that anarchists could "bring the spirit of rebellion and the yeast of anarchist ideas within the very ranks of the army," as opposed to promoting subservience and pro-war, pro-militarist ideas such as the army anarchists in Ukraine do.

There are other anti-militarist articles in that volume as well, none of which you comment on whatsoever, since they conflict with how you've been exploiting Malatesta for pro-militarist, pro-NATO war effort propaganda in your other articles. I don't need to "assume" bad faith on your part, because I've been observing your transparently bad behavior.

In addition to the militarism question, you do not address Malatesta's revolutionary defeatism (in Volume 5 where he wishes for his state at the time, the UK, to lose against the Boers, who were also imperialists, though he didn't recognize this) or anti-imperialism in the face of a national liberation struggle (Crete/Candia during the Greco-Turkish War of 1897). Because it conflicts with your pro-western imperialist stance. Whereas you engage in bad faith, assuming that anyone who's anti-militarist must also be a pacifist who opposes national liberation, which, if you'd read Malatesta, you'd know is not the case.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-pro-candia

lumpy (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 14:24

In reply to by The Corrector (not verified)

"You do not even understand the distinction between militarism and war, or between militarism and militancy. As we can see, you are extremely confused about basic anarchist positions and thinking"

you then wonder if it's because of wayne's background as a "statist", so since we're being really nasty!

here's a different theory bout this type of confusion: maybe the struggles with these distinctions are because of a lack of any real familiarity with violence, fighting, military training or anything like that? it's the classic problem of the armchair analyst

i don't personally know wayne or the details of his life but i've met enough marxist-leninists of that approximate vintage, they often seem to have spent their lives on the margins of the baby boomer phenomena, suffice to say they lived through a relatively peaceful and prosperous period of history, standing small in the large shadows of the real revolutionaries that lived a generation or 2 before them. they know it's true, the lesser sons lol

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 17:49

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Dear Lumpy,
I appreciate your desire to be not quite as "really nasty" as The Corrector. However I don't really think I "lived through a relatively peaceful and prosperous period of history." As I have mentioned, I spent my earliest decades opposing the U.S.-Vietnam war, in every way I could. This was also the period of the Civil Rights/Black Liberation movement, among other non-peaceful aspects of the period. Also the "post-war boom" was coming to an end (around 1970), finishing the relative prosperous period. That is where I developed my politics, first as an anarchist-pacifist, then as an unorthodox Trotskyist, and finally as a revolutionary anarchist. I was never an "authoritarian" statist, whatever Corrector thinks.
Solidarity.

lumpy (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 18:01

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Hi Wayne!

i'm a total asshole and you're always very civil so i acknowledge that

but my point is more about how none of us alive today, were in the durruti column or the makhnovchina or anything like that. very few of us, relatively speaking, could say we have first hand military experience to draw from in regards to our politics. i've been in some mild-to-medium scraps with the cops too but it's just not the same thing, you know?

just my 2 cents for why distinctions like militarism vs militancy might be murky sometimes

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 18:52

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Lumpy,
I am impressed by your modesty.
However it was The Compactor, not I, who contrasted "militarism vs. militancy."
You are entirely right how none of us have experience of military struggles, not to mention revolutions, or great class upheavals. This is why we read books of history and theory. As well as study current events such as in Ukraine, Palestine, Myanmar, and elsewhere to see what we can learn from them. (Of course you know all this.)
Studying the history of fascism would be pretty useful right about now.

lumpy (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 19:09

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

i do know, yes and my own antifascist studies have helped a lot, true!

full disclosure, i'm afraid i tend to agree with your opponent. they seem to be trying to get at the core of malatesta's complex views on the use of political violence and armed struggle. i can't help but notice how malatesta appears to have only managed to immediately get captured by the british when he tried to take up the gun himself haha

still a total badass, don't get me wrong! apparently pulled off some heists, fought the cops during labour uprisings and escaped prison so that's not nothing!

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 18:41

In reply to by The Corrector (not verified)

The Corrector is arguing over the correct interpretation of the great Italian anarchist, Errico Malatesta. C. is claiming that I am (deliberately) distorting Malatesta's views in my book review of his 5th vol. of collected writings. I am, you see, hiding Malatesta's anti-militarism, in order to support my own militaristic championing of Western imperialism. So Corrector says.

By "anti-militarism," Corrector says, he means not only opposition to imperialist war but also Malatesta's opposition to armies and states. Malatesta, C. points out, was not only against war but also against armies! And the state! And I failed to mention this!

Of course Malatesta was against the state (Duh!) and aimed, as an anarchist to do away with the army. However, when oppressed peoples fought for independence from imperialist states, they needed some sort of army. Corrector admits, "This of course doesn't mean Malatesta was opposed to armed organization as such." An "armed organization" fighting a national liberation war is an army. But C. points out, Malatesta was against states, of course. As an anarchist he did not think that a state was needed to coordinate a popular liberation army. True enough.

But what if revolutionary anarchists are not influential enough (yet?) to form their own militia or guerrilla columns? If they care about their people's self-determination, and wish to participate in their struggle, at least some are likely to join the regular bourgeois state-organized armed forces--as the only forces fighting against the invader. While doing so they should make anarchist propaganda, where they can, while fighting the imperialist enemy.

I am assuming my opinion that Ukraine vs. Russia is not an inter-imperialist war; only one side is imperialist. The Ukrainians get aid from NATO, but it is the Ukrainians who are fighting and dieing and whose country is at risk of being wiped out and overwhelmed by Russia. If NATO took over the fighting, it would be a different matter. (This is a much more important issue than whether anarchists should join the Ukrainian army.)

In vol. 5 of the collected works, Malatesta discusses briefly the issue of whether anarchists who are drafted into the imperialist French army should (1) go in and serve, or (2) refuse, run away, or dodge. (p. 140) This is a different case than anarchists who join the Ukrainian army which is not imperialist and in which many anarchists support the war effort (not support the government, the army, the capitalist class, or the imperialist allies, but the war against the imperialist oppressors).

Malatesta noted that some French militants said they should "evade the draft or desert." Others thought "it was useful and necessary to bring the spirit of rebellion and the yeast of anarchist ideas within the very ranks of the army." Malatesta concluded that "the matter does not have a single solution," individuals should decide for themselves depending on personal and environmental factors. Some should desert or otherwise refuse service, while "some can be more useful by entering the army, making propaganda among soldiers, and setting an example...." I think this is a valid approach, with the understanding (again) that in the Ukrainian war, anarchists would not be against *the war against Russia* but against the state and the official army and the capitalist system.

Finally, let me deny Corrector's libel that I was ever "an authoritarian and statist communist." My formal politics have changed over time, but my libertarian values have never wavered.

lumpy (not verified) Sat, 11/16/2024 - 19:16

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

"I am assuming my opinion that Ukraine vs. Russia is not an inter-imperialist war; only one side is imperialist."

^^^ THIS. This is the bone of contention, isn't it? HOW in the hell, can you possibly still think that?

It was perhaps debatable at the beginning of the war but there's a lot of information to the contrary at this point. Are you just moving the goal posts around on your definition of "imperialism" or something? Are you just too deep in to turn back now?

Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 12:03

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Must I repeat that it is only Ukrainians who are fighting the Russians, only the Ukrainians who are dying on the front lines but also in the cities and villages from Russian bombs? Not Americans, or Germans, or French people, or Poles. Only Ukraine is in danger of being crushed, occupied, and assimilated into Russia. THAT is "HOW in the hell, can you possibly still think that?"

lumpy (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 12:08

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

and the behavior of literally EVERYONE ELSE who isn't in the ukraine or openly a russian ally?

ya haven't fukin noticed? or you aren't lookin? or what? wake up and smell the proxy war.

nobody's being shy bout it. you're simply delusional if you don't see it by now.

Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 10:28

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Lumpy directs me to "the behavior of everyone else" besides the Ukrainians and Russians. But it is the Ukrainians and Russians who are at the heart of the matter. They are the two parties which are fighting, killing, dying, and blowing up villages and cities. In this case, the Russian imperial state invaded the (non-imperialist, capitalist) Ukrainian country. How can anyone with a heart deny that the Ukrainians are the ones being abused and are justified in fighting back? And in getting arms and aid from wherever they can?

Sure, the Western imperialists are not helping Ukraine out of a belief in the rights of oppressed nations! They only act to advance their own imperialist interests. So what? Does this mean that anarchists should abandon the Ukrainian people?

Would you abandon the Palestinians because their fighting forces are led by reactionaries and they are getting arms from Iran (a regional sub-imperialist)?

In World War II, would you have rejected the Resistances in France and elsewhere because of their ties to Allied imperialism?

In the Vietnam War, would you have rejected solidarity with the struggling Vietnamese people, because their leaderships were Stalinists and getting military aid from the imperialist Soviet Union (in competition with U.S. imperialism)?

Anarchists should always try to look behind the inter-imperialist rivalries of U.S. vs. Russia and/or China or Iran (which are real and important) and look for the elements of mass struggle and popular resistance (such as the Ukrainian workers and oppressed against the Russian invasion, or the Palestinians against Israeli/U.S. imperialist genocide).

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 10:38

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

SIGH no wayne, your bad-faith question would be more honestly framed as: would i have flown myself to vietnam to get napalmed?the answer is no. i would not have done that. neither would you. you're also bickering with us here instead of getting on a plane to palestine right now. i'll assume both of us have probably sent some money or gone to some demonstrations or whatever. token gestures of that kind.

you seem to be confusing abstract moralizing for realpolitik or how an anarchist should decide when and where to get shot about what. you'll never need to bother with the details because you can just wave your hands about morality and solidarity from a chair where nobody is shooting at you.

Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 10:53

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Lumpy seems to think that political solidarity is meaningless unless I get on a plane to Kyiv or Gaza and face the guns.

But there are two questions. The first is "Should I (we) be in solidarity with the people of Ukraine? of Palestine? Do I think they are right in their struggle?" Only if the answer is Yes, does the *second question* arise: "What should I (we) do about it?"

So a lot of U.S. people decided that the Palestinians were in the right and should not suffer genocide. They did not get on a plane but engaged in mass demonstrations and campus tent occupations here in the U.S.A. Their aim was--and is--to inform and arouse the U.S. people.

Whatever I am doing elsewhere, on this site I am discussing Question One with other anarchists. In good faith.

anon (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 11:31

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

"But there are two questions. The first is "Should I (we) be ..."

Imma stop you right there, Wayne. You seem to be lost. This is an anarchist website. Fuck off with this hive-mind bullshit. You do not speak for "us" or "we" or "a lot of people".

Be more careful with your lame attempts at solidarity and propaganda.

Solidarity means attack!
Everybody knows this.

Luke from DC (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 19:28

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

In addition to protests that sap the morale of occupation supporters, there has been a focussed, almost HLS-style campaign against Israeli owned arms maker Elbit in the US and in the UK. Their factories have faced everything from peaceful protests to night attacks to invasions and destruction of their machinery. Several Elbit plants have closed and investors are bailing out as they did from HLS. Keep in mind, one vacuum cleaner bag full of dust emptied into a clean room can shut it down for months. One such attack (on a clean room from above) has cut off supplies of at least one part needed to build F35 fighter jets, some of which are exported to Israel. This just after production restarted after a previous disruption.

anon (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 13:06

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

One day Wayne sez there's no US imperialism behind Ukraine... only Russian imperialism.The other WAyne sez yes. there may be US/Western imperialism behind, but "So what?". Also Ukrainian military's run by Neonazis, but "So what? Anarchists should enroll regardless, for UkWayyyne!".

Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 06:02

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

"This is a different case than anarchists who join the Ukrainian army which is not imperialist and in which many anarchists support the war effort (not support the government, the army, the capitalist class, or the imperialist allies, but the war against the imperialist oppressors)."

Allow me to draw your attention to a propaganda video by these "anarchists" and "antifascists" that was spread widely in June 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsodbPkjO3c

In particular I'll draw your attention to the target marked "Russian Shit" at 9:15 as well as to the statement "We want to go and kill some Russian pigs, because they're really fucking retarted. We want to kick their asses. We have an RPG and we will go pow pow! Lots of fingers, legs, hands, and other shit." at 13:30.

Do you think this is an appropriate way of talking about the population of Donetsk and Luhansk? Maybe ignorant people might be fooled by this, but people who have paid the slightest bit of attention understand that at that time the majority of the people fighting in Donbass were mobilized people from Donetsk and Luhansk (the mobilization in Russia would only start in September 2022, before that they had only some professional brigades employed which were still quite outnumbered by the mobilized from Donetsk and Luhansk). So make no mistake here, more than anything else the people in this video are talking about random mobilized people from Donetsk and Luhansk. Similarly, you use language of "the war against the imperialist oppressors." Do you think thàt is an appropriate way of talking about the population of Donetsk and Luhansk?

If you're having difficulty answering those questions, let me remind you that most of the fighting (especially at that time) was going on in Donbass. That is, while these "anarchists/antifascists" were *not* fighting in their own home regions, this "Russian shit" or "imperialist oppressors" *were* fighting in their own home region. Who are the imperialists here, Wayne?

Maybe you'll now also understand why it's no coincidence that so many of these "anarchists/antifascists" were and still are associated with or even members of various fascist groups - this all-consuming hatred towards national minorities (the people of Donbass in this case) is a cornerstone of fascist psychology. So maybe a last bonus question: Seeing the popularity of this sort of propaganda material in the Western anarchist movement, where it not only passes without criticism but is even help up as an example, what does this say about the state of the Western anarchist movement?

Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 12:11

In reply to by Tim Declercq (not verified)

Was there a genuine popular rebellion in the Donbas in Ukraine? A previous Comment noted that the people of the Donbas had previously voted for "autonomy" within Ukraine, not independence, let alone merger with Russia. I agree that the regime should have granted autonomy. In any case, whatever genuine popular and democratic movements had existed have long since been destroyed by the war, in particular crushed under the iron heel of the Russian army and police. The same goes for Crimea.

anon (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 15:01

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

"Do you support the declaration of state independence of the Donetsk People's Republic?" That was the question of the Donbass 2014 referendum. And yes there were protests in Donbass against the putsch in Kiev.

Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 20:52

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

You answered none of my questions, and instead are "explaining" to me things I have already told you in an earlier discussion on this very website, and even still getting it wrong. The referendum was for independence, the question on it was "Do you support the Declaration of Sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic" with the possible answers of "Yes" and "No." I even linked you to the text of that declaration (it is here: https://rpw.ru/nr/Dekl.html) so you could review the document in question for yourself. Don't you remember? It was just a few weeks ago on this very website.

And you don't have to tell me about the boot of the Russian (and Ukrainian!) bourgeoisie crushing the popular movements in Donbass. In that same earlier discussion I told you about the attack on the Donetsk Supreme Soviet in September 2014, how working-class deputies were forced underground, about the repressions against the labour movement and in particular the miners strikes, etc. Indeed, I even gave you the contact details of Sergey Kutz, who was a deputy at the time in the Donetsk Soviet, was forced underground, and later on was kidnapped and tortured by the MGB for his involvement in the miners strikes, so you could go talk to them yourself.

I would appreciate it if you would stop this strange endeavour of trying to "explain" to me the very things I have already myself explained on this website, and that while you're even leaving parts out that are inconvenient for you. For example Akhmetov and his henchmen also played a major role in repressing working-class expressions in the Donbass rebellion, and Akhmetov is Ukrainian oligarch. It wasn't *just* the Russian bourgeoisie, it was both of them together, which should come as no surprise to anyone with a modicum of class consciousness since both of them have a direct class interest in not letting a document calling on a ban on the appropriation of surplus value (again, see the actual document which was the subject of the DNR referendum) actually succeed.

Now, I'd appreciate it if you could actually answer the questions I posed to you, instead of trying to "teach" me about the Donbass events. I didn't ask about your opinion of the Donbass insurrection, but about whether you consider some particular use of language an appropriate way of talking about the population of Donbass.

The Compactor (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 11:52

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Funny how even in your response now you still ignore the quotes from Malatesta where he specifically says he's against any kind of army and that we should promote loathing for the role of soldier, that anarchists should promote insubordination within the army (when not fleeing or otherwise refusing service), not loyal service to the army. You either have much trouble with basic concepts or you're responding in extremely bad faith.

As to Ukraine, they are a junior partner to imperialism. They've sent weapons to Myanmar and they use Israeli and American weapons themselves. Their soldiers have been trained by American soldiers.

Malatesta hoped for his state, the UK, to lose against the Boers, whereas you hope for America, your state, to win via its Ukrainian proxy. American arms companies profit from Ukraine then use that profit to further arm Israel. America used an ammo depot in Israel to arm Ukraine. In the Greco-Turkish War of 1897, Malatesta and Kropotkin were united in saying anarchists should take the intervention of the Western European imperialist powers into account, whereas you say it doesn't matter that they've been intervening in Ukraine.

Malatesta couldn't have been clearer that although he supported national liberation (as in Crete), this didn't extend to anarchists serving as soldiers for Western imperialist states (Italy or the UK) and their interests. You disagree. There's no need for you to claim anarchism, since you so strongly disagree with it and support the interests of Western states (while they commit genocide in Palestine and Lebanon in part with money they make off Ukraine via US and Israeli arms companies)

anon (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2024 - 14:45

Funny how over the last 150 yrs it's always been English speaking peoples telling the Europeans to "SETTLE THE FUCK DOWN AND STOP FIGHTING AND KILLING EACHOTHER!"
AnD tHen tEh eNglIsH sPeaKerS hAve To gO iN anD hElp tHem gEt oUt oF thE sHiT tHeY'vE gOTten TheMsElvEs iNto!!

Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 10:40

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I think I've written as much as I care to on this topic at this time. If my Comments--plus my article in Black Flag and the review of Malatesta which are referred to--are not enough, then we will just have to disagree.

The Compactor (not verified) Tue, 11/19/2024 - 09:47

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

This would make sense (agreeing to disagree) if you had at any point addressed Malatesta's views on militarism. But you haven't, not in your review of Volume 5 of his writings, nor here. So how can I agree to disagree with your interpretation of Malatesta's views when you purposely don't even mention them? Smells like good old fashioned bad faith rather than open and plain political disagreement.

Wayne Price (not verified) Tue, 11/19/2024 - 14:05

In reply to by The Compactor (not verified)

And what does that have to do with the Price of your mom's eggs?
I'll rip off your head and shit down your neck, The Compactor.
You want none of this.
Wayne

Wayne Price (not verified) Tue, 11/19/2024 - 15:19

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Not by me.

BTW, I did not say that we should "agree to disagree." I wrote that we should "disagree." And we do.

The Compactor (not verified) Tue, 11/19/2024 - 22:41

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

We should disagree but not agree to disagree, seems like a distinction without much of a difference, but ok, what should we and what do we already disagree about Price? Because I read a book with multiple articles about militarism in it, you supposedly read it too, given you reviewed it, but apparently you don't remember the articles, because you don't discuss them or the points made in them. So how can we have a political disagreement about something you're not even aware of and never talk about? Seems quite impossible to me. When given the opportunity to discuss the articles, you simply changed the subject. It seems more like you disagree with Malatesta, which is why you refuse to talk about it, but who's to say? Not even you apparently.

Against all im… (not verified) Mon, 11/18/2024 - 22:28

The only thing this painful debate has demonstrated is the extent to which the tankie mind virus has infiltrated anarchist circles.

Wayne, you're wasting your time on people whose political identities have been wrought and digitally weaponised by algorithms and disinformation - people for whom cartoonishly signifying ideological purity by laundering Putinist talking points about Nato and proxy wars is more important than longstanding anarchist practices like internationalism and working class solidarity.

Seriously, these people are a scourge on anarchism, not to mention on the left in general.

Aunty Imp (not verified) Tue, 11/19/2024 - 22:51

In reply to by Against all im… (not verified)

If you side with the Ukrainian state and its NATO allies, you are a campist and not an anarchist by your very own definition. If you think anarchy is the end goal but we have to use (or be used by) the State to get there, you're more of a Marxist than an anarchist. Hope this helps. Longstanding anarchist practices like internationalism and working class solidarity include anti-militarism. If you weren't such a liberal and knew anything about anarchist history you might be aware of that. But you're just a troll under a bridge.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Y
5
X
e
G
)
C
g
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.